Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/198,891

Pre-Roll Body Having Integral Ceramic Mouthpiece

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 18, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, PHU HOANG
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mallen Tech Co. Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
450 granted / 691 resolved
At TC average
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
747
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 691 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schuster et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230033877). Regarding claim 15, Schuster discloses a filtering mouthpiece capable of being adapted for preassembling with a pre-roll body via an airtight seal, the mouthpiece comprising: an open mouthpiece end (108, fig. 5) disposed opposite to an attachment end (124, fig. 5), and a passage (116, fig. 5) providing fluid communication between the open mouthpiece end and one or more filtration holes disposed through the attachment end [0041]. Regarding claim 16, Schuster discloses wherein the filtering mouthpiece is manufactured from a ceramic material by injection or compression molding [0038]. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113). In this case Schuster discloses common processes such as injection and molding for materials such as plastics and fibers respectively; the claimed filtering mouthpiece is the same as or obvious from the disclosed ceramic filtering mouthpiece of Schuster. Regarding claim 17, Schuster discloses wherein the one or more filtration holes are sized during manufacturing of the filtering mouthpiece to filter particulate having a predetermined average maximum particle dimension [0041]. Regarding claim 19, Schuster discloses the filtering mouthpiece tapers from the attachment end toward the open mouthpiece end ([0038-0040] and fig. 5). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230033877) in view of Cantrell et al. (U.S Patent No. 4515170). Regarding claim 18, Schuster does not expressly discloses the dimension of the filtering holes. Cantrell discloses wherein the one or more filtration holes have a maximum cross-sectional dimension overlapping with the claimed range from about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range. Cantrell discloses a preferred cross-sectional area of the hole (28) can be 0.00125 cm² and 0.00385 cm² corresponding to diameter of 0.39894 mm to 0.7001mm respectively. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230033877) in view of Sutton et al. (GB2511305A). Regarding claim 20, Schuster does not expressly disclose the filtering mouthpiece comprising a ring of flexible material. Sutton discloses a filtering mouthpiece comprising a ring of flexible material (34, fig. 2) having an adhesive on a surface thereof, wherein the ring of flexible material is adhered around a side surface of the filtering mouthpiece proximate to the attachment end to form an airtight seal therewith and is capable of being wrapped around and adhered to a side surface of the pre-roll body proximate to an end of the pre-roll body to form an airtight seal therewith (page 9). Sutton does not expressly discloses the material of the 0-ring; however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the O-ring material such as vinyl, polypropylene (PP), and polyethylene (PE). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569432
AEROSOL GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569003
PRE-ROLL FILLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557846
ELECTRONIC VAPOUR PROVISION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12543775
METHODS FOR REDUCING ONE OR MORE TOBACCO SPECIFIC NITROSAMINES IN TOBACCO MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12532911
SMOKING ARTICLE WITH FRONT-PLUG AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.7%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 691 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month